Religious vs. secular

Pseudo-secularism exposed:
Balakrishnan

11 May 2009

AN OPEN
RESPONSE TO MR. SHIV VISVANATHAN

1. I read your Op-Ed , in the form of a
letter to Shri L.K. Advani , entitled“ Will Advani apologise for Godhra? ”, in the
English daily, The New Indian Express of 08 May 2009. It warranted a response
and hence this letter of mine, as an Open Response. It is also being posted in
a number of Internet Groups. Hopefully, you won't mind that course of action of
mine.

2. At the outset, and at a personal level, I
must confess that it was a tortuous ordeal reading through your letter . So
convoluted and meandering was the construction of the sentences , that at quite
a few instances I gave up trying to make sense. The beauty of the English
language lies in conveying one’s ideas through simple, short and crisp
sentences , unlike your effort please. It jars the reader.

3. Be that as it may , reading through your
letter , I was reminded of sage words expressed by another sociologist , Ashis
Nandy ( a Christian ), who wrote :“ The policies and actions of the Hindu nationalists
may often have not been secular, but a part of their soul has always been. One
example would be Nathuram Godse's last testament in court, in which he repeatedly
accuses Gandhi of flouting the canons of secular statecraft.The opponents of
the Sangh Parivar, not finding any intellectually meaningful response to these
anomalies, pretend as if they do not exist or paper them over with the help of
trendy, imported theories of fundamentalism and religious extremism”.How true,
in your case!!

SECULARISM / COMMUNALISM ( In the Indian Context
!!)

5. The words ‘ secular ’ and ' communal ',
in the Indian context, are not even remotely related to the meanings which the
English dictionary assign to them. In short and in the Indian context, these
are the very opposite of those stated in any English dictionary. To amplify. In
India,
one is NOT ‘secular’, unless one harbours a deep-rooted anti-Hindu animus and
expresses it frequently, like a stuck-in-the groove gramophone record of
yesteryears!!Besides, in any street riot, the RSS or the
extended Sangh Parivar must be blamed immediately and repeatedly. It is
akin to V.I. Lenin telling – “First, lets stick the convicts badge on him, and
after that, we’ll examine the evidence”.!!

6. In a similar vein, is the Indian
definition of the term ‘communal’, and is a logical corollary of the above
understanding of the term ‘secular’. The dictionaries define the word
‘communal’ as ‘pertaining to a community, owned in common, shared’. But, in India, Hindus
have only to say that they belong to a community, and that they share a common
culture. Lo and Behold! The ‘secular Heavens come crashing down’ in a ‘secular
cacophony’of invectives!!

7. Your letter follows, the above
understanding of mine of these terms, to the proverbial tee, please!!

AYODHYA

8. You wrote, “Does Babri Masjid become an
answer to the emptiness or inauthenticity of secularism?” You then add a
rhetorical flourish, “If so Mr.Advani, could you honestly tellme what is the genocidal quotient of your
speeches?”. WOW!!

9. The entire Ayodhya – Babri Masjid
imbroglio is an excellent case study for ‘truthful’ historians, as a classic
case of Goebbelsian propaganda of disinformation resorted to bythe Indian seculars of all hues, inclusive of the
Indian ‘secular’ English media. Lies were blatantly purveyed as the truth. No
more. No less!! Permit me to put the issue in perspective.

10. Archaeological Evidence : From
published scholarly treatises , it can be discerned that between 1975- 1980,
the ASI under the directorship of Prof. (Dr) B.B. Lal , a former Director
General of the ASI, undertook an extensive programme of excavations at Ayodhya,
including the very mound of the Ramjanmabhumi on which the so-called ‘
Janmasthan Masjid’or Babri Masjid once stood till 06 Dec 1992 . At
Ayodhya, Prof. Lal excavated 14 trenches at different locations in order to
ascertain the antiquity of the site. According to Prof. Lal, based on his
findings following the excavations, the history of the township was at least
three thousand years old, if not more, and that at the Ramjhanmabhumi there
stood a HUGE STRUCTURE on a parallel series of square pillar bases built of
several courses ofbricks and stones. When seen in the light of 20
black stone pillars, 16 of which were found REUSED AND STANDING IN POSITION AS
CORNER STONES OF THE BABRI MASJID DOME STRUCTURE, Prof Lal CONCLUDED THAT THE
PILLAR BASES WOULD HAVE BELNGED TO A HINDU TEMPLE THAT PREDATED THE BABRI
MASJID.Now to the comic part of the findings. Dr.Lal was
considered as a ‘secular’ archaeologist till then – but from the moment he
published his archaeologicalfindings, he became ‘communal’ in ‘secular eyes’!!Says it
all, doesn’t it?

11. Authenticating Prof Lal is this
statement of Shri K.K. Muhammad , Deputy SuperintendentArcha eologist ( Madras Circle ) as
appeared in the English daily, Indian Express on15 Dec 1990 : “ I can reiterate this (ie. The
existence of the Hindu
Temple before it was
displaced by the Babri Masjid) with greater authority – for I was the only
Muslim who had participated in the Ayodhya excavations in 1976-’77 under Prof.
Lal as a trainee. I have visited the excavation near the Babri site and seen
the excavated pillar bases. The JNU historians have highlighted ONLY ONE PART
OF OUR FINDINGS WHILE SUPPRESSINGTHE OTHER.” Muhammad went to add: “Ayodhya is as
holy to the Hindus as Mecca is to the Muslims;
Muslims should respect the sentiments of their Hindu brethren and voluntarily
handover the structure for constructing the Rama Temple.”

12. And then, there are the excavations of
the ASI, on the orders of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court in
2003. Using modern technology of a ground penetrating radar, it was found that
a ‘structure’ existed below the site where the Babri Masjid stood!!This
proves the fact that Islamic iconoclasm destroyed not one, but two Hindu
Temples at the same spot i.e. the one discovered by Dr. Lal pertained to the
Delhi Sultanate Period, andthe latter discovery belonged to the Mughal era!!
Science has spoken the Truth. The seculars still wallow in purveying falsehood
on this issue.

13. You had spoken admiringly of Arun
Shourie in your opening paragraph. Here then is what Arun Shourie wrote in the
English daily – Indian Express – in its edition of 25 Oct 1990. It was entitled
:"Arey Bhai, Masjid Hai Hi Kahaan?". Shourie
wrote, and is worth quoting at some length : " But why do you refer to it
as a mosque at all? Where is the mosque, my friends, when the namaz is not
performed? When for forty years idol worship is going on there, what kind of a
mosque is it? That is just the temple of our dear Ram. That is not L K Advani
talking to V P Singh. It is V P Singh talking to several RSS leaders."
Continuing, " The elections had not yet been announced. V P Singh had traveled
to Bombay to
meet the RSS leaders. Persons I know intimately were present throughout the
meeting, which was held at his request in Mr Ramnath Goenka's penthouse at Express Towers. V P Singh said then that as the
structure was valued by the Muslims and the site was sacred to the Hindus, he
was for Rajmohan Gandhi's proposal -- i.e., for shifting the mosque bricks to
another site and constructing the temple at the site. This is in essence what
the VHP and the BJP came to espouse, with the improvement that the Hindus shall
raise the funds to bear theentire cost of shifting the structure. Later, too,
I know from one of the senior most leaders of the BJP, one who measures every
word he says, Kidar Nath Sahni, V P Singh used the exact expressions of the BJP
leaders. Later still -- and I know this directly from my friend Jaswant Singh,
the BJP MP and today the Chairman of the Estimates Committee of Parliament - he
used the very expressions to Jaswant Singh. To him V P Singh added that as the
structure was a mandir in any case, why "demolish" it? " Where
is the need for demolition?" V P Singh had asked, " One shove
and it will crumble. If each of you were to carry just one brick home, there
will be nothing left there. Nor was there any change in the ensuing months. I
know -- again from persons who were directly involved that V P Singh did not
just endorse the three-point formula which was worked out, he actively
participatedin devising it. Under it the entire property --
i.e. the structure and the land -- was to be acquired by the government. The
structure was termed Part A, and the land around it Parts B and C, for reasons
we shall just see. All this was worked out between V P Singh and others between
Monday, October 15, and Thursday, October 18 ." And then, Shourie wrote:"
Then came a stormy meeting of Muslim leaders with V P Singh. And so around 5 pm
V P Singh let it be known that he had changed his mind. What was the
"disputed structure became the "disputed land". And all lands,
the titles to which were in dispute before the Allahabad High Court were now to
be taken to be covered by the expression "disputed land. As nothing was to
be done to disturb what was "disputed", this change meant that
nothing could be commenced anywhere, not even at the spot where the shilanyas
had been done. But once Government acquires the land," the law officer of
the Government explained to him, " all disputes about its titles would
end. There is thus no reason for going back on what hasbeen agreed -- about
commencing construction. " Then I won't acquire the land," said V P
Singh. “ And (late) V.P. Singh was an honourable gentleman. Wasn’t Brutus also
honourable?

14. The govt. sponsored debates :Soon
after it took office in Nov. 1990, the Chandra Shekhar government was advised
by (late) Shri Rajiv Gandhi to narrow down the Ayodhyadispute to the specific point whether the Babri
Masjid had replaced a pre-existing Hindu temple. The First meeting between the
VHP and the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee(AIBMAC) took place on 01 Dec 1990 in the presence
of Shri Subodh Kant Sahay, Union Minister of State for Home Affairs (MoS), Shri
Sharad Pawar, Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawatand Shri Mulayum Singh Yadav, the CMs of
Maharashtra, Rajasthan and U.P. respectively.

15. After preliminary discussions the
meeting was adjourned to 04 Dec 1990. During the second meeting it was AGREED
by both sides that (a) both sides will furnish their evidence to the MoS by 22
Dec 1990; (b) the MoS would make photocopies of the evidences by 25 Dec 1990;
(c) the two parties would then meet on 10 Jan 1991 for reviewing the evidence.
A brief summary of the respective evidence presented by both sides is appended
below and makes for interesting reading!! This is available in open source
publications!! And yet, went unreported in the media!!

16. The VHP Evidence :The
evidence submitted by the VHP was precise and within the parameters laid down
by the Government. All its documents were centered on the point thatthe Babri Masjid had replaced a pre-existing
Ramjhanmabhoomi Mandir. Moreover the documents were summarized in a covering
note setting out clearly the only conclusions that could bedrawn.

17. The AIBMAC Evidence :The evidence submitted by the AIBMAC ‘experts’ was no
more than a pile of papers, most of them being newspaper articles written by
sundry scribes andprolific in polemics rather than hard facts and
rigorous logic. To cite one example from this pile will be useful!! The AIBMAC
had submitted as evidence that Ram was born in Nepal,
in the Punjab, in Afghanistan,
in Egypt, in Varanasi, in Ayodhya at a
different site, in some unknown place and finally not at all etc. So,, of each
of the 8 ‘evidences’ cited, 7 contradict the other!! Some ‘Eminent Historians’
these, that made the AIBMAC team of ‘experts’!! Rightly has it been termed by
many sane scholars as ‘History v/s Causitary’!!

18. Finding the going getting
increasingly tough in the dabate, the AIBMAC unilaterally decided not to turn
up for the meeting on 25 Jan 1991. The VHP was present at the appointed place
at the appointed hour!!

19. Any dispassionate observer, on
examining the documents presented in the debate and the conduct of both the
parties will conclude that the VHP had co-operated with the Govt. allalong.
It had kept all the dates and provided pertinent evidence all along. The AIBMAC
behaviour on the other hand, betrayed from the very start a lack of will for
any serious and meaningful dialogue. And yet, the blame must be apportioned on
the VHP!! Thats 'secularism' in India!!
JAI HO!!

20. An example of the filibustering indulged
in by the AIBMAC provides comic relief !! To quote Arun Shourie from his most
readable “ Indian Controversies “ (Rupa & Co) :“ So,archaeology itself was denounced. And sophistry
was put out. Irfan Habib led the charge. But his own howler showed his
arguments to be special pleading: if one went by the dateshe
ascribed on the basis of Carbon Dating and all,Babar
would have expired in 1965 instead of 1530, the reign of Akbar would commence
in 2001 instead of having ended in 1605!”(pp-
549).And for his path breaking research and discoveries, the secular UPA
Government confers the ‘Padma Bhushan’ to this ‘Eminent Historian’!!Secularism
– JAI HO!! That just about sums up Ayodhya.

GRAHAM STAINES
MURDER & ATROCITIES AGAINST MISSIONARIES

21. You wrote : “Yet, when it came to the Staines murder you appeared tone deaf. Is a missionary
less of a human being because he is Christian, a foreigner and a missionary?”

22. The secular English media, as well as
the Minorities Commission projected Staines
as a devoted social worker. They had focused on his exemplary work for leprosy
patients. Inits report sent to the Justice Wadhwa Commission
of Inquiry, the Minorities Commission had declared that Staines
and his family had not been involved in preaching Christianity leading to
conversions in Manoharpur , Orissa.

23. Findings of Justice Wadhwa Commission : On the basis of evidence submitted, the
Commission concluded : “ Besides his involvement with Leprosy House, Staines was also involved in missionary work. The
missionary work of Staines has come to light from the various despatches sent
by him to Australia,
which are published in the newsletter – TIDINGS. Staines
also used to take part in baptism ceremonies although he may not havecarried out baptism himself. - - - -. However, it
is the dispatches sent by Staines to Australia
in the newsletter TIDINGS that make it clear that Staines
was also involved in active propogation of his religion apart from his social
work. It is also clear from thesaid dispatches that conversions were taking place
in jungle camps. The missionary work of Staines
obviously included organizing and conducting jungle camps, translating the Biblein tribal languages, preaching of the Bible to the
tribals. - - - -.His missionary activities did lead to conversions of
tribals to his faith.”

24. Here are just two examples of the
despatches filed by Staines for the
newsletter 'TIDINGS' .

25. Graham and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 23 July,
1997: Praise God for answered prayer in the recent Jagannath car
festival at Baripada. A good team of preachers came from thevillage churches and four OM
workers helped in the second part of the festival. There were record book
sales, so a lot of literature has gone into people’s hand - - -. [ OM is a
carefully chosen acronym : the organization it signifies is actually one of the
largestpublishers and distributors of missionary
literature, and has its offices in Carlisle, Cumbria, United Kingdom!!]26. Graham and Gladys Staines, Mayurbhanj, 20 March
1998: - - - Over the
next two months there will be a programme of baptism in nearby villages for
those asking for them. Theseare times for witness to non-Christians too - -
-".

27. Law of the Land: In the Rev.
Stainislaus vs Stae of Madhya Pradesh , AIR 1977 SC 908 , a Constitution Bench
of the Supreme Court, in an unanimous judgment held : “ - - - Wefind no justification for the view that it [
Article 25(1) of the Constitution] grants a fundamental right to convert
persons to one’s own religion. It has to be appreciated that the freedom of
religion enshrined in the Article is not guaranteed in respect of one religion
only, but covers all religions alike, and it can be properly enjoyed by a
person if he exercises his right in a manner commensurate with the like freedom
of persons following the other religions. What is freedom to one, is freedom
for the other, in equal measure, and there can, therefore, be no such thing as
fundamental right to convert any person to one’s own religion”.

28. And, are we all not aware of the modus
operandi in the ‘Harvesting of Souls’? There are enough and more of open source
publications available to prove this aspect. What Mark Tully , the former BBC
station chief in India terms
as "Powder Milk Christians", in his book "No Full Stops in India".However,
of far greater importance is the fact that Staines,
as a foreigner and therefore on a visitor’s visa, was engaged in evangelical
work which is expressly forbidden. Thus, to put it bluntly – he was a
‘law-breaker’ of Indian Law!! And you support a law breaker!! Need anything
further be said about Indian ‘secularism’?

29. Atrocities Against Other Missionaries :
Jhabua , Jhajjar , Allahabad
, Baripada et al are still fresh in our minds – the manner these incidents were
reported by the ‘secular’ English media in 1998-’99!! Collectively , the
reportage conveyed to the unsuspecting reader that maniacal Hindu groups were
going round raping nuns, attacking missionaries, burning down Churches etc!!But
yet ,nothing was further from the truth!!

30. In a hard hitting Article published in
The New Indian Express of 29 June 2004 , entitled –‘Secular’
hoot and scoot, tell lies and run away'-
S.Gurumurthy wrote : “- - - After the truth was revealed contrary to the lies
they purveyed the `secular' media has run away. They even remotely never felt
guilty about the damage they have caused to the nation and to the Hindus. Is it
just a genuine, isolated error? No. This is their behaviour,their character. Not isolated error just. See
their record to know their character. Does `Jhabua' ring a bell? Immediately
after the BJP-led government came to power in 1998 at the Centre, this was a
great lie the `secular' media massified on a scale unprecedented. ``At Jhabua,
four Christian nuns were raped by 24 Hindu goons' (read the Sangh Parivar) the
`secular' media kept on repeating for months on end till the whole world was
convincedabout it. But even as it massified this lie the
secular media knew that half of those 24 criminals were Christians, so it was
no Hindu rape of Christian nuns. This was later established by `secular' MP
Government's investigation and chargesheet. The `secular' mediaran away after telling such a massive lie, when
the truth was revealed. `Jhabua repeated in Jhajjar' screamed another respected
`secular' daily charging that in Jhajjar in Haryana aChristian nun was molested. This was proved false
in two days. But here again, after the truth surfaced the `secular' newspaper
ran away. `Nun raped in moving car in Orissa' screamed all newspapers and TV
channels. The Wadhwa Commission which went into Staines
murder case found this report concocted by the nun herself. Here too the
`secular' media ran away after Wadhwa found out the truth. By these massive
lies not just the averageIndian, but the whole western world began
believing that Hindus in India
habitually rape the Christian nuns. Move on. `Two Christians killed and one
injured' shouted all newspapersand channels.Justice Wadhwa found that the
killings were the result of family feud and the killer was also a Christian.
Here also the `secular' media ran away after Wadhwa revealed the truth. Further.`Hindu
fundamentalists are burning down churches in Andhra and Karnataka', screamed
the `secular' media. Investigations by `secular' governments in the two States
later established something entirely different. That Anjuman-e-Islam, anIslamic fundamentalist organisation linked
to SIMI, had carried out those acts to create trouble between Hindus and
Christians. Again the `secular' media ran away after this was revealed. Just
illustrations, these do not exhaust the lies. See the damage caused to the image
of the Hindus and to India.Tell lies, as massively as they can, and then after
the truth is revealed, run away, so that the lies masquerade as truth and serve
the 'secular'cause. This is `secular' hoot and scoot.Why do
they not regret telling lies after they come to know the truth? That does not,
but lies, serve the cause of secularism. That is why. “

31. And yet , the RSS / VHP / Sangh Parivar
are the villains !!

GUJARAT 2002

32. You have purveyed the same
‘bullshit’ about Gujarat 2002 , that secularists of various hues have been
repeating in themedia . However, true to your secular traditions you
are silent on the findings of the SIT, and, submitted to the Supreme Court on
13/14 Apr 2009 !! Lets briefly recapitulate!!

33. The news fresh from the oven is how the
mass of concocted turd that Teesta Setalvad threw against Modi came back and
landed on her own face after seven years. Teesta hasunderstandably vanished from the public glare,
given that she has lots of cleaning up to do. Moping up seven years of
accumulated excreta takes a long time. Every new finding on the Gujarat riots
seems to be doing two things: lessening the culpability of Modi, and exposing
the fabrications of charlatans of the Gujarat Riots Milking Federation, which
Teesta heads. And so it is with the latest report by the Special Investigation
Team’s (SIT). The SIT also found no truth in the following incidents widely
publicised by the NGOs:(a) - A pregnant Muslim woman Kausar Banu was gangraped
by a mob, who then gouged out the foetus with sharp weapons; (b) - Dumping of
dead bodies into a well by rioteers atNaroda Patiya; (c) - Police botching up
investigation into the killing of British nationals, who were on a visit to
Gujarat and unfortunately got caught in the riots. The SIT report clearly shows
some of the dubious and outright illegal methods she followed inher quest for “justice” (sic) viz : (a) - Tutoring
witnesses; (b) - Filing false affidavits (c) - Lying openly; (d) -
Manufacturing tales of incidents that didn’t actually occur; (e) - Threatening
witnesses and aides who didn’t “obey” her etc etc!!

34. Teesta Setalvad is a solid specimen of
the vilest form of profiteering: from other people’s misery. She’s so vile that
if no misery actually exists, she’ll invent one like : (a) - Zarina Mansuri,a
30-year-old Muslim woman who was believed to have been brutally hacked to death
and later burnt to ashes by a mob in the Naroda Patiya massacre of February 28,
2002, was not even alive at that time. She had died of tuberculosis (TB)some four months earlier. (b) - About the rape of
one of her friends, Shabana (15), which Anisha is said to have witnessed
(according to her statement recorded by police on May 15,2002), Yunus’s deposition said: “This, again, is
wrong. Anisha had witnessed nothing like that that day. We, along with several
others, were hiding on the same terrace of a house in Gangotarinagar at that
time and none of us had seen anything like that. (c) - The more renowned. It
concerns the curious tale of a certain Zahira Shaikh, her carefully-nurtured
“eyewitness” who turned around and bit her in unmentionable places. I refer to
the'Best FAKERY Case 'OOPS ! I meant the 'Best
Bakery Case'!

35. But the skeletons didn’t stop falling.
In December 2008, her trusted aide, Raees Khan defected, revealing even fouler
details.

36. And now, the SIT report, which directly
implicates her.“ It is clear from the report that the horrendous allegations
made by the NGO were false. Cyclostyled affidavits were supplied by a social
activist and the allegations made in them were untrue…". The SITreport clearly shows some of the dubious and
outright illegal methods she followed in her quest for “justice” (sic): (a) -
Tutoring witnesses; (b) - Filing false affidavits; (c) -Lying openly; (d) -
Manufacturing tales of incidents that didn’t actually occur;(e) - Threatening witnesses and aides who didn’t
“obey” her etc. SATYA MEVA JAYATE !! We are also aware of the caperings of
Teesta's fellow -partners-in-crime - Mr.Harsh Mander and the Booker Prize
winner - Suzanne Arundhati Roy and her invention of a 'gory rape' when the
victim was actually in the U.S.A.!!

37. If that was not enough , earlier in Oct
2008 , the Justice Nanavati Commission of Inquiry went public with Part -1 of
their report . Narendra Modi-absolvement in this hour of the year is perhaps
the worst tiding to ever hit the “secular forces.” The 6-year-long
media-political campaign against Modi has turned in Modi’s favour rather
dramatically and at the most inopportune moment. Even an engineered petition to
stop the Nanavati reportfrom becoming public proved futile, thanks to the
Supreme Court. The entire secular spectrum is thus hurriedly wiping the
eggshells off its face. The aforementioned pieces are festinated exercises in
damage control.

38. The Nanavati panel has not released the
entire report– we only have the first part, which clearly absolves Narendra
Modi. While it is too much to expect an apology from the political class, let’s
turn to what India’s top bloggers and journalists say. We meet silence. Those
that were quick to thunder, revile, mock, and in general pour scorn over Modi
at every turn are now speechless. Do they have the courage to at least say, we
werehasty, we got carried away in the general media
hysteria? Those that talk about understanding nuances, or those that repeatedly
call for justice for “murdered Indians.”

39. And yet , you wrote :“
Today, the evidence before the Nanvati Commission and the investigations of the
SIT team show that your party has been deeply involved in rioting violence and
genocide”.Tell me Sir – “Does LYING come naturally to the
seculars? I am curious.” The reason I query is because, in a written reply
tabled in Parliament in 2005,the Minister of State for Home Affairs had stated
that “ 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed in the Gujarat riots of 2002”.
That apart, the Union Home Ministry's Annual Report of 2002-03 stated that
40,000 Hindus were in riot relief camps. What made those 40,000 Hindus rush to
relief camps? To seek protection from whom? Why was it necessary if they were
the main aggressors? And, who killed those 254 Hindus? Which invisible monster
did it?

40. It would be unfair not to mention a few
voices that rose from among the journalists themselves, against this enormity
of canards and calumny. The most eloquent one was VirSanghvi’s, usually part of the “secular”
establishment, ever ready to portray Muslims as victims and Hindus as
aggressors. Vir Sanghvi’s crisis of conscience suddenly gave him intellectual
clarity. Some extracts from his article“One-way
ticket”in The Hindustan Times of 04 MAR 2002: “ There is
something profoundly worrying in the response of what might be called the
secular establishment to the massacre in Godhra. …There is nosuggestion that the karsewaks started the violence
… there has been no real provocation at all … And yet, the sub-text to all
secular commentary is the same: the karsewaks had itcoming to them.Basically, they condemn the crime;
but blame the victims …Try and take the incident out of the secular construct
that we, in India, have perfected and see how bizarre such an attitude sounds
in other contexts. Did we say that New York had it coming when the Twin Towers
were attacked last year? Then too, there was enormous resentment among
fundamentalist Muslims about America's policies, but we didn't even consider
whether this resentment was justified or not. But there comes a time when this
kind of rigidly 'secularist' construct not only goes too far; it also becomes
counter-productive. When everybody can see that a trainload of Hindus was
massacred by a Muslim mob, you gain nothing by blaming the murders on the VHP
or arguing that the dead men and women had it coming to them. Not only does
this insult the dead (What about the children? Did they alsohave it coming?), but it also insults the
intelligence of the reader.There is one question we need to ask ourselves:
have we become such prisoners of our own rhetoric that even ahorrific massacre becomes nothing more than
occasion for Sangh Parivar-bashing?"Unfortunately,
you don’t seem to suffer any pangs of conscience as your letter vividly
portrays!!

RSS / SANGH PARIVAR & VIOLENCE

41. It has become routine for the secular
establishment to blame the RSS / Sangh Parivar for any communal riot that takes
place in India. Gujarat 2002 was no exception.Yet,
Commissions after Commissions of Inquiry have found the RSS / Sangh Parivar
‘NOT GUILTY’.This on the basis of evidence presented before them and
after going through the due process of law, unlike the ‘Hoot & Scoot Lies’
of the ‘seculars’. A few examples to provethe point.

42. The Justice P. Jagan Mohan Reddy Commission
: Appointed to inquire into the Ahmedabad riots of 1969 ,
the Commission, on the basis of evidence presented before itheld: “ - - - On this evidence it is
difficult to hold that the rally of the RSS, which was no doubt the biggest in
Ahmedabad, had created any communal tension between the Hindusand Muslims”.

43. The Justice Wadhwa Commission : Appointed to inquire into the murder of Graham Staines ,
the Commission, on the basis of evidence presented before it held: “ - -
- There is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that any of the persons involved in the
crime was in fact a member of either the Bajrang Dal or BJP or any
organization. There is nothing to suggest in the evidence before the
Commission, or in the investigation conducted by the Crime Branch and the CBI
thus far that there is involvement of any organization, even that of the
Bajrang Dal, in the planning and the execution of the crime - -.”

44. In this connection , it is pertinent to
quote Shri RNP Singh , a former IB officer , who in his well researched book“Riots
& Wrongs “wrote: “ - - - Another unfortunate aspect noticed is
that the pseudo-secularists fail to maintain impartiality and make it a point
to unhesitatingly hold only the RSS and other Hindu organizations responsible
for the communal riots. Even by mistake, they do not touch upon Muslim
organizations or theprevailing communal situation, as they fear that
it would tell upon their secular image.”I can
already see Shri RNP Singh being dubbed "communal" by the
'secularists'!!Q.E.D.!!

45. And here is something more adding fuel
to the ‘secular fire’!! The name of the research institution is Sorbonne
University, Paris, France. The researcher is Dr. (Father) Vincent Kundukulam of
St Joseph Pontifical Seminary, Aluva, Kerala. Thethesis for the doctoral research is:"Le RSS
Et L'Eglise En Inde (RSS and Church in India)." ---. " The
conclusion drawn by Fr. Kundukulam is that RSS cannot be considered as a
nationalist organisation in the sense in which the term 'nationalism' is
generally interpreted in India.- - -. " In his view, RSS is a
multi-faceted organisation which is political, cultural, religious and
voluntary in nature and approach."

46. Further, Fr. Kundukulam argues against
branding the RSS ideology as fascism, Nazism, fundamentalism and communalism.
He said the terms fascism, Nazism, and fundamentalism aremuch abused terms in India. They have a distinct
connotation in the European context that can hardly apply to the Indian milieu
". - - -. " The ideology of the RSS and the way in which it is
interpreted by the Sangh leaders borrowing modern terminology have no
camparison to the sense in which the term fundamentalism was used in America.
So also, fascism and Nazism do have distinct meanings in the socio-political
contexts that prevailed in Italy and Germany which have no bearing in the
Indian context."

47. Fr. Kundukulam felt that communalism is
not at all a part of religion. Communalism is nothing but mobilisation of
people on communal lines to serve a specific cause. RSS can,therefore, be said to be communal only in a
limited sense. BJP, the political arm of the RSS, during its rule at the Centre
has not committed any acts that could truly be described as fundamentalist,
fascist, or communal " .- - -. " In fact, one of the
first acts of A B Vajpayee after taking over as Prime Minister last time was to
call on Mother Teresa and Delhi Archbishop," he said .- - -. " He
admires the RSS for the dedication and discipline of its cadres, the simple
life style of its pracharaks, the moral teaching itimparts to the younger generation in its daily
sakhas, and the voluntary labour put in by its cadres at critical times such as
natural calamities. "( URL:http://world. christianpost. com/article/
20031219/ 1016.htm )

48. Something more on these ‘ communal
organizations’!! Howsoever the UPA government and its coalition partners
oppose the RSS, as also the ' very-secular English media ', thegovernment had to laud the service activities
being rendered by various RSS associated organisations in different parts of
the country. About one third of the 14 voluntary organisations whom the Union
Ministry of Tribal Affairs has identified in its annual report for their
outstanding services, are the RSS associated organisations. The Ministry of
Tribal Affairs implements its welfare schemes for all-round development of
Vanvasis with the help of voluntary organisations. The Ministry has identified
14 organisations, which produced remarkable results through the better
implementation of its various schemes. The Ministry has kept them in special
category to grant relaxations while providing grant for next year ( viz 2008).

49. Highlighting the role of these
organisations, the Ministry in its annual report has said that the
organisations had done a good job in implementing the government schemes and
they would be encouraged in implementation of developmental schemes in coming
years. The Ministry is working on four major schemes with the participation of
voluntary organisations. They include grant to the organisations working for
the welfare of the Vanvasis, literacy campaigns among Vanvasi women, running of
vocational training centres and development of various Vanvasi communities. The
report said that the fund granted to voluntary organisations in the first four
years of the Tenth Plan was utilised hundred per cent.

50. That is not all!! Cardinal Mar Varkey
Vithayathil in his book“ Straight From Heart “, wrote that
the 'secular'CPI-M as a 'threat' to democracy and warned that India will sufferthe same fate as China under Mao Zedong.The
Marxist party will use all kinds of tactics to strengthen itself in places
where it is in power, he added!! Putting his views on BJP, the Cardinal in the
book says, 'The commendable thing about the party is that they want to preserve
the good aspects of Indian culture like modesty of women and promoting certain
moral values, for which they would opt for stricter media censorship. For them
religion isvery important and they support democracy and
human rights.'Besides protecting ancient culture and heritage of India, like
Vedas, Upanishads and the great philosophical teachingsto the six systems of Indian philosophy, BJP
respects, preserves and promotes knowledge of Sanskrit and
Ayurveda.' Blasphemy in secular eyes , like yours??

CONCLUSION

51. I was quite taken in by your brazen
comparison of the Holocaust to Gujarat 2002 !! It was akin to comparing chalk
and cheese !! Coming from an academic it is unpardonable!!Bethat as it may , in the light of my foregoing
analysis, I believe ‘ You are lying Mr. Shiv Visvanathan.’ And I am also
inclined to believe, you know that you are lying !! That compounds the felonyand makes
you an inveterate liar.It is therefore for the likes of you seculars, to
apologise to the Indian public for all the lies you and your ilk have been
brazenly purveying. That is if you have something called– CONSCIENCE!!Cheers!!

Warm Regards

H.Balakrishnan

A muslim will only have respect if you are religious, not if you are secular.

12/24/2008 01:34 PM

SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH
RABBI YONA METZGER

'My Dream Is to Create a United Religious Nations'

Yona Metzger, the
Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel,
talks to SPIEGEL ONLINE about the Abraham as the father of all three
monotheistic religions -- Islam, Christianity and Judaism -- and explains how
that connection could be a starting point for a dialogue of peace between them.

SPIEGEL ONLINE:Chief Rabbi, Jews refer
to Abraham as "Our Father Abraham." How difficult is it for you to
accept the fact that Christians and Muslims also call Abraham their father?

Metzger:This is not difficult
at all. It fits very well with the Jewish religion. A close look at the word
"Abraham" reveals that it is constructed from the words "father
of many nations." So, if Muslims associate themselves with Abraham's son
Ismael, or Christians associate themselves with Abraham's grandson Esau, or we
associate ourselves with his other grandson Jacob, then three great
monotheistic religions were born from him.

SPIEGEL ONLINE:What is Abraham's
function in the Bible?

Metzger:The great Jewish
philosopher Maimonides explained this very impressively. God created various
objects in heaven. The sun, for example, or the moon and the stars -- they are
all high above us. This was understood to mean that God wanted us to respect
them more than the things which were created on Earth. Gradually things went
wrong. Instead of praying directly to God, the people turned the objects into
targets of their prayers.

SPIEGEL ONLINE:They worshipped idols.

Metzger:When Abraham came, he
saw the sun rising, setting and the world turning and he thought, who is causing
all these to move? There has to be someone above all these. So he essentially
was saying: "You have stopped halfway. There is someone above these
objects you worship! So why go to the ministers? Let's go directly to the
king." And so he commenced a journey which touched many people. Together
with his wife Sarah, he traveled from place to place and developed the
philosophy of belief in one God. Slowly but surely many people gathered around
him and today most of the population of the world is monotheistic:
Christianity, Islam, Judaism ...

SPIEGEL ONLINE:... 3.5 billion people
...

Metzger:Perhaps even more. I
met with leaders of the Hindu religion, who I was certain were idol
worshippers, but their leaders said they also believe in God -- it's just that
they believe He has a way through the idols. And some Buddhists say that Buddha
is only a worldview, and not a religious belief. We see that most of the world
really follows the path of Abraham.

SPIEGEL ONLINE:But one gets the sense
that the Jews think that they are the original and Christians and Muslims are
only "copies."

Metzger:Well, from the
historical perspective it was so. Jesus was a Jew. Subsequently Christianity
came into the world and then Islam. These were the steps, historically -- not
the other way round. When Jesus was in Jerusalem,
he was not familiar with a church or a mass -- that is certain. He knew only
one thing: the Holy
Temple. After his time,
the rest was developed by his disciples.

SPIEGEL ONLINE:But Christians stress
that Abraham believed in God before he became circumsized and actually became
Jewish.

Metzger:Abraham had no rabbi,
no teacher. He was taught the law by hiskishkesas we say in Jiddish, "from his
own two kidneys." That is to say, he learned by himself and through
himself. It is interesting to note that the Torah calls Abraham an Ivri,
"a Hebraic."

SPIEGEL ONLINE:Is it important for you
whether Abraham was a real historic person? Historians and archeologists have
not found any clear proof that Abraham has ever lived.

Metzger:I believe that the
Bible represents fully the true history of the world. If historians or
archeologists find proofs, we are delighted, but we don't need them.

SPIEGEL ONLINE:When you look at the
historical perspective, much blood was spilled in the name of religion. So how
can a dialogue be conducted between religions?

Metzger:Look, Abraham
specifically is very helpful regarding dialogue -- and I will give you an
example. Once I had a meeting with an Iranian leader. He was one of the heads
of the Ayatollahs. Initially he did not want to shake my hand, but eventually I
turned to him and asked him: "Do you believe that your forefather was
Abraham?"

SPIEGEL ONLINE:Ibrahim, as the Muslims
call him in Arabic.

Metzger:Yes. Ibrahim. And he
answered, "Yes." I said to him that I also believe that my father was
Abraham. So I asked him, "Do you believe that our forefather would be
pleased today -- up in heaven -- seeing that one son kills himself in order to
kill his other son? Which father would delight in such a thing?" He did
not have an answer.

SPIEGEL ONLINE:So Abraham could serve
as a vehicle for dialogue?

Metzger:Yes. Even if you have a
brother who you believe is not a good person and you think that the world needs
to be Muslim -- do not kill! If you want, speak, put it on the table and be
cultured. Like every father Abraham would expect that his children sit down at
the table instead of killing each other.

SPIEGEL ONLINE:Can you give another
example of dialogue?

Metzger:During a recess, in a
conference which took place in Europe, one of the heads of the Muslim Courts in
Jordan
invited me to a cup of coffee in the lobby of the hotel. We sat for about half
an hour. I began telling him about some of my problems; I told him about my
family, my children, some issues with rabbis and the chief rabbis that are
under me and the responsibilities I have. He told me about his problems. At the
end he stood up, shook my hand and told me: "Now, after having told me all
of your stories, and after I have told you all of my stories, I cannot hate
you."

SPIEGEL ONLINE:Do you believe that
religious people are better equipped to bring peace to the world?

Metzger:Definitely. My dream is
to create a United Religious Nations -- just as there is the United Nations in New York. The diplomats
did not succeed in bringing peace to the world. They need help. And this can
come through religious language. Because a Muslim does not respect a person who
is secular; he will only have respect if you are religious. This Religious
United Nations would also include Hindus and Buddists. We religious people
speak the same language.